Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage of Shannara


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please, everbody, let's WP:AGF, argue the merits of the article, and avoid WP:ADHOMINEM arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Heritage of Shannara

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't establish notability for the grouping as a whole. Each of the four novels has an article and the main article already has a section for it, so this appears to be a useless split with nothing to merge. TTN (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an intermediate step between a notable fictional franchise and individual notable works.  So what if the books aren't necessarily covered under the name "Heritage of Shannara"?  This is equivalent to a season of television: Part of a larger work, logically subdivided, and then further subdivided later.  Notability may not be inherited, (although almost all the time I see that cited, it's incorrectly applied) but if A is a part of B is a part of C, and A and C are clearly notable, attempting to delete B is unproductive and unhelpful.  What, really, is to be gained by deleting this article?  There's not even a bare assertion that the encyclopedia will be improved here: There are a thousand better deletion debates to have: NN biographies, promotion, and whatnot, but the assertion here is that the encyclopedia needs to not have an article on a grouping of notable works in a notable fictional universe?  I utterly fail to see the utility. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an equivalent comparison. Episode lists are an immediate given simply because in most cases they cannot fit in the main article. Season articles for the most part have to establish their notability, except in cases where a series is so massive one episode list would not work. If none of the novels had articles, they would definitely need to be covered, and if the main article was too large, splitting them out into their collective series would be necessary. The main article is not too large, the novels do have their own pages, and this page in particular provides no pertinent information. The only reason for this to otherwise exist is if it happened to fulfill the criteria of establishing notability as a grouping. There's little reason to ignore a useless page just because it does no harm. TTN (talk)
 * You've just argued totally from a rules interpretation perspective, and written one, solitary, virtually non-sequiter sentence about the potential harm of having such a grouping. From a delete/keep perspective, I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye, but I'm hard pressed to see how one can argue in good faith that this is worth spending any amount of time on. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The page does not establish independent notability and serves no particular function, content-wise or navigation-wise, so it should be removed on that basis. It's a pretty simple argument. The idea of relative importance being a factor in such a process makes no particular sense. On the case of the four novels being compiled into one, I cannot imagine such a compilation would ever be able to establish notability, as I would imagine a box-set of BDs would not be able to establish notability. It would have to be a very old series that had been newly compiled long after the initial publishing date to receive any independent coverage of the compilation. Either the series article or the singular novels can mention the compilation. TTN (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * , note also that It's a book, a real hardcover compiling the four shorter novels listed here. Does that change your nomination at all? Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, where are the reviews of this book/series as a whole? at the moment the article is unreferenced, so how can this meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, oh, oh, just had a look at the individual book wikiarticles, they also have no references, maybe can assist here? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * all of these books were published long before the Internet, so online sources are going to be a bit scarce. Publishing a compilation volume, such as this one, tends to attract few to no new reviews, so that absence is unsurprising. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, without having to delve into ridiculous detail, there do appear to be a lot of RS covering one or more of these four books, often in context of the television efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, without having to delve into ridiculous detail, there do appear to be a lot of RS covering one or more of these four books, often in context of the television efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, without having to delve into ridiculous detail, there do appear to be a lot of RS covering one or more of these four books, often in context of the television efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, without having to delve into ridiculous detail, there do appear to be a lot of RS covering one or more of these four books, often in context of the television efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, without having to delve into ridiculous detail, there do appear to be a lot of RS covering one or more of these four books, often in context of the television efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Keep. Once again, it's clear this nominator hasn't bothered to do a shred of the appropriate research. All four books in the series were widely reviewed -- the first volume, for example, was covered in Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, and School Library Journal, to cite only the most usual suspects. The fact that TTN espouses the irrational belief that popular fiction doesn't merit coverage in an encyclopedia doesn't entitle him to inflict so much time-wasting and annoyance on the reality-based Wikipedia community. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I ever once mention the four individual books that make up the sub-series? This has nothing to do with them, unless you would like to make the argument that they should be merged into this page. This page in particular is the one being nominated, and your response has nothing to do with it. Please address the functionality of this page and why it needs to exist over Shannara, which has the same function of listing the four books. TTN (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're just highlighting the irrationality of your argument. You effectively admit that you haven't complied with WP:BEFORE. incorporated into AFD policy, and have no idea whether the commentary on the individual volumes is also sufficient to support an article centered on the series they comprise. And you didn't bother to search for reviews of the edition of the full series, as is your norm. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And what does that have to do with anything? Either show sources that have to do with the the sub-series as a whole or admit you have no argument. You have been right before, but the number of AfDs where you just spammed wikilawyering nonsense leaves me to have no trust in what you say. TTN (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What does your failure to follow AFD policy have to do with the validity of your deletion proposals? Lord, if you can't answer that, it's time for you to go back to seventh grade and write that essay about Why Daddy Buys Life Insurance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you have nothing? So far the arguments are "well, there's no reason for it to not exist because other stuff is more important" and then you claiming my supposed failure to follow BEFORE means anything in particular. I get you have this weird little vendetta, but it gets kind of silly after a point. Just provide some kind of actual point as to why this is a relevant article when the main series article covers exactly what needs to be covered: the name of the sub-series and the titles of the four books. TTN (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  08:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly already more in depth than space allows for in the Shannara article, so it isn't a 'useless split' at all. This article could be expanded to a good article easily with the sourcing that I found in 3 minutes of google searching. Note to TTN, please stop badgering everyone voting on this, they are allowed to have a different opinion. You asked for sources specifically about the sub series? There are numerous such sources to be found with a simple google search, if you use the right search parameters. Clearly meets notability requirement, best you could ever argue for is a merge into Shannara, which I don't think is appropriate as there is plenty of room for expansion here. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  14:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.